Thought as it was on the front page at the moment it would be interesting to hear some opinions on the topic!
atticus
- Wed, 16/09/2009 - 21:18
Well I took T206 (Energy for a Sustainable Future), but I found that some of the language used in the texts and views expressed by staff and students made me feel I’d been co-opted to ‘the cause’. Well I think a ‘cause’ is often a wrapper for dogmatism and non-thinking, the opposite of what education should be about, so I asked a tutor where I should look for the best-informed dissenting view, and was told there are none. Now considering that there is no hard evidence for the extent or repercussions of any climate change into the future (just predictions), I found that response rather worrying.
It now concerns me that the climate change bandwagon has achieved a kind of institutional critical mass, with potentially non-conforming research being starved of funds and credibility, and those brave enough to disagree with the homogenous IPCC line being vilified as reckless and immoral. Perhaps this hidden agenda creeping into OU courses is a symptom of this, and I’m sure everyone has noticed how anthropogenic climate change is now routinely expressed in the media as simple fact, with no alternative views or qualification.
Anyway, now I think about it, on this issue the OU has turned me from a convert to a sceptic, so maybe it’s done its job after all, even if inadvertently!
it will confirm what a lot of people already suspect.
Its well worth the 1hr 14mins!
nimmy - Thu, 17/09/2009 - 15:03
You should read the Earth system a book by Kump, It shouls things are not a as clear cut as the media would have us believe.
wrighty
- Thu, 17/09/2009 - 21:50
I'm definitely a skeptic. I also think governmental approaches to the problem are flawed.
Firstly, while the earth's temperature seems to be rising, I am yet to be convinced that it is entirely due to human activity. Technically we're still in an ice age (defined as an period of time where there are permanent polar ice caps). As the earth has not always been in an ice age it must've been warmer in the past, prior to Jeremy Clarkson regularly doing 4mpg round a track in a BMW M5.
Secondly, governments should use economic arguments rather than emotional guff about our grandchildren's future. I use low energy lightbulbs because they save on my electricity bill, not because I'm worried about my descendants. It makes sense to develop sustainable energy sources for the future not because it'll save the planet from cooking, but because it's perfectly possible for oil to run out, or at least become economically unviable, in our lifetimes.
nimmy - Thu, 17/09/2009 - 23:04
I was just watching a very interesting tv programme today. The Earth magnetism has reversed poles hundreds of time throughout history. The Earth magnetism is the thing the protects the Earth from solar radiation.
In the past 100 years or so the Earth magnetism has reduce by something like 10% and right across the Atlantic there is a band that has reduce by a third or so. This is leading scientist to think the Earth poles are currently reversing. Presumable where the magetisn is reduced most more solar radiation is getting in. I don't know if that would have an affect on the Earth weather systems.
I too am somewhat of a skeptic on the issue. I always was a little uncertain about this idea that humans are entirely to blame, but it was in studying that I confirmed this view.
First of all by studying S193: Fossils and the history of life. I read the Atlas that came along with the study guide in depth, carefully looking at the changes in the climate. Again, seemed to only confirm my suspicions. Then again when reading Topic 5: Climate change for S250 I felt again that any statistics they were throwing at us only seemed incomplete or pointed towards a non-human cause!
While I don't think we're entirely blameless, I'm certainly one of the ones that feels that climate change is just part of the natural cycle. We are coming out of an ice age, and that is it. It's bound to get warmer.
Brocky, I saw clips from the Great Global Warming Swindle but I'll definitely take a proper look at it. Thanks for that!
AlanSmith
- Sat, 19/09/2009 - 10:52
I'm of the opinion that homo sapiens is partly responsible for the current increase in global temperatures though I do not agree with the scare mongers and their more extreme claims.
More research is required though so many factors affect the Earth's climate that it is doubtful whether any one individual can really claim to understand them fully.
The continuing emergence from the last ice age must contribute, to a certain extent, to the increase in global temperatures. In addition, the huge increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and methane etc that have been pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution coupled with the destruction of rain forests across the planet must also have caused an increase. The question is - how much do these and other factors contribute.
Fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, axial tilt and precession of the poles along with the periodic reversal of the Earth's magnetic poles may have an unknown effect. There has been a suggestion that the latter of these is taking place now though again more research is required before this can be proved either way.
Whatever the cause, action must be taken to reduce the amount of pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, if for no other reason than to protect the future health of our grandchildren.
Alan
Brocky
- Mon, 21/09/2009 - 16:56
Its worth watching the whole 1 hr+ feature as it states some pretty incredible facts. The one I noted the best was the amount of CO2 that humans actually create (It's the smallest amount)! Once you realise how insignificant this figure is you'll wonder why the environmentalists are making such an issue of it.
nimmy - Mon, 21/09/2009 - 18:01
People should worry more about the super volcano under Yellow stone. Last erupted over 600,000 years ago and is over due. When that pops, and it is when, the world will take years to recover. It will be a very unpleasant time to live.
I'm not an expert on this by any means; my interests lie in the biological sciences, but surely this poll is unfortunately worded?
I felt guilty saying no to whether I was "concerned" about climate change. Of course I'm concerned, but I answered no because I do not necessarily believe all the hype. And I happen to think that the IPCC is a dangerously powerful organisation with its own interests to protect.
As we're technically coming out of an ice age, it stands to reason that it's going to get warmer; I think the concerns are how much we as human beings are contributing to the rate of warming. It would appear that H. sapiens' contribution is negligible, taking into consideration other natural causes and historic cyclical events.
I think that it is healthy to have debate on this subject and am dismayed at how institutions such as the BBC (and the OU!) take for granted that what the IPCC and their ilk say is absolute fact. I implore the OU to be more impartial. The BBC will probably be loyal to whoever is running the country at the time, but the OU has no such excuse!
I don't over concern myself with climate change - humans are never going to go without in terms of making life easier and more convenient for themselves. Climate change will take place no matter what we do (it's something that is always happening) although I accept that we may speed it up.
I believe that everyone should do what they can do in terms of waste and pollution but the big wasters - industry and the likes will continue to over pollute. Also didn't I read somewhere that cows are by far bigger pollutors than motor vehicles in the in the gas they pump into the atmosphere?
emd_y2k
- Sun, 25/10/2009 - 01:34
i believe in climate change but am unsure how much of a difference it will be if we reduce our individual carbon footprint. i switch lights and things off anyway cos ive always done it and i get annoyed with lights on when no one is in the room. it does help the leckie bill tho! i think it should be big companies making major changes in their work ethic as they are doing a lot more damage than little old me although im sure collectively, it will make a big difference. i feel that we would really have to be pre industrial revolution to see a major reduction in CO2.
on the other hand, the sun still has 5 billion yrs to go yet our planet is heating up, there a massive holes in the ozone layer and natural disasters are on the increase... somethings happening that shouldnt be.
Darren
- Tue, 27/10/2009 - 10:10
Climate change is happening now and temperatures will continue to rise unless we can reduce the amount of harmful chemical compounds that we release into the atmosphere. The climate change lobby certainly appears to be quangoed, people who are a part of it are passionate about preventing harmful outcomes from climate change so that's why that quango exists; passionate people don't like 'no men'
I volunteered to become an Environmental Volunteer to the local council authority for the area that I live at and there are some peculiar, passionate, behaviours:
Person talking about composting: (Shows a projected image that suggests urinating onto a compost-heep is positive.)
Darren: Come on I can't Urinate in my garden it's against the law.
Person talking about composting: No it's normal, lots of people do, most people do.
Young woman: Yes it's like 'Moon Cups'
Darren: What's a moon cup?
Young woman: They're washable female sanitary products, most people use them.
Person talking about composting: (Shows a projected image that shows the proper ratio for mixing urine with water, 20:1, to pour over a compost heep.)
Darren: A person can't mix their urine then carry it to the garden, that's what get's you a bad rep!
Person talking about composting: No it doesn't, no it doesn't.
atticus
- Wed, 04/11/2009 - 23:48
My concern that man-made climate-change is a ‘cause’ that’s rapidly becoming an institutionalised dogma defended on moral grounds appears to be well-founded.
‘Green’ enthusiast Tim Nicholson has just won the right to sue his employer Grainger Plc for unfair dismissal on the grounds that, “a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.
I have no problem with knowledge claims of future climatic conditions being classed as faith, but should society really be extending the ‘special status’ umbrella to shelter a whole new category of unsupported personal convictions? How have we arrived at a point where a claim becomes ‘special’ BECAUSE you can’t support it?!
I’ve only just read this so haven’t digested it fully yet, but it seems to me to create a bizarre precedent – will we now see delivery drivers protected by law as they spend all day in the canteen claiming to be ‘conscientious internal combustion engine objectors’?
Any thoughts anyone?
g00lia
- Thu, 26/11/2009 - 01:51
I personnally believe that climate change is a big issue and I would consider myself "green". The question though isn't and shouldn't be whether you believe that climate change is "man-made". The question should really be: "Do you really like breathing in all of the chlorides, bromides, excessive CO2, etc etc?" No one can question this. It is obvious that in the past years, an increasing number of people get cancer (to give an example) which wasn't so common just 15 years ago. The polar ice sheets are melting, we can observe that many animals are rapidly going extinct... whether this is our fault or not, we have the responsibility of doing something about it. We sure didn't help! We know what CO2 does, why not cut our emissions? I mean it's only logical that we use sustainable energies and live a sustainable way of life. Why aren't we doing it yet? Well...big electric companies wouldn't earn too much money if we all had 100% self-sustaining houses would they? That's like the electric car... with all of the powerful minds in this world... it seems impossible that no alternatives to our polluting cars have been found. Okay, we have hybrids..but really that's not enough. An electric car did exist many years ago, but somehow it's been taken out of the market under false pretenses (see "who killed the electric car" documentary)...What about the dreaded peak oil? If that's not a good excuse to find alternatives... anyways... my point is: Who cares if we are entirely or partly or not to blame for this? Something needs to be done no matter what.
karen
webster - Thu, 26/11/2009 - 11:03
BUT is climate change the most important issue? what is beyond debate is the fact that we're trashing the planet. Humanity spreads accross the earth like a plague of locusts. Webuy cheap goods, use them, then trash them, we are turning mountains and rainforests into rubbish heaps. Is this what we WANT?
I've put this question to the climate change vote, to be submitted at Copenhagen, if it's something that's important to you too, please vote it up. Trashing the planet is not a belief, there's no agenda here and no doubt. It's happening. It needs to be stopped.
'I believe'....a debate about something as important as climate change shouldn't be about belief. It's a fact, or it isn't. Right now it isn't, it's a platform for political manipulation. A basis upon which to raise taxes, raise profiles and push through unpalatable reforms. I actually admire Al Gore for his success in bringing this issue to the forefront of media attention and OK any doom laden prophecy will always excite the media, but he's still got it up there as a credible issue. Let's add to that, let's talk about facts, TRASHING THE PLANET IS FACT.
perkin1856 - Thu, 07/01/2010 - 13:10
I have a question really - whilst I am a scientist I am not a climate scientist. When reading Ian Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth' I noticed a number of serious mistakes but one comment struck me as potentially very wrong: he claims that the atmosphere only needs CO2 at 20ppm to act as a greenhouse gas. Above that figure no further effect is felt!
Can anyone explain?
AlanSmith
- Fri, 29/01/2010 - 15:51
20 ppm seems low to me as well. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide states that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 35% since the Industrial Revolution which points to an increase from around 280 ppm to the current level of about 380 ppm. Perhaps he meant 200 ppm?
Going off topic, I was watching a documentary on gamma ray bursts in which there were three very elementary errors in what the narrator said so we shouldn't necessarily accept what books and such programmes claim.
Well I took T206 (Energy for a Sustainable Future), but I found that some of the language used in the texts and views expressed by staff and students made me feel I’d been co-opted to ‘the cause’. Well I think a ‘cause’ is often a wrapper for dogmatism and non-thinking, the opposite of what education should be about, so I asked a tutor where I should look for the best-informed dissenting view, and was told there are none. Now considering that there is no hard evidence for the extent or repercussions of any climate change into the future (just predictions), I found that response rather worrying.
It now concerns me that the climate change bandwagon has achieved a kind of institutional critical mass, with potentially non-conforming research being starved of funds and credibility, and those brave enough to disagree with the homogenous IPCC line being vilified as reckless and immoral. Perhaps this hidden agenda creeping into OU courses is a symptom of this, and I’m sure everyone has noticed how anthropogenic climate change is now routinely expressed in the media as simple fact, with no alternative views or qualification.
Anyway, now I think about it, on this issue the OU has turned me from a convert to a sceptic, so maybe it’s done its job after all, even if inadvertently!
Watch this
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/UsTF3KX-The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
it will confirm what a lot of people already suspect.
Its well worth the 1hr 14mins!
You should read the Earth system a book by Kump, It shouls things are not a as clear cut as the media would have us believe.
I'm definitely a skeptic. I also think governmental approaches to the problem are flawed.
Firstly, while the earth's temperature seems to be rising, I am yet to be convinced that it is entirely due to human activity. Technically we're still in an ice age (defined as an period of time where there are permanent polar ice caps). As the earth has not always been in an ice age it must've been warmer in the past, prior to Jeremy Clarkson regularly doing 4mpg round a track in a BMW M5.
Secondly, governments should use economic arguments rather than emotional guff about our grandchildren's future. I use low energy lightbulbs because they save on my electricity bill, not because I'm worried about my descendants. It makes sense to develop sustainable energy sources for the future not because it'll save the planet from cooking, but because it's perfectly possible for oil to run out, or at least become economically unviable, in our lifetimes.
I was just watching a very interesting tv programme today. The Earth magnetism has reversed poles hundreds of time throughout history. The Earth magnetism is the thing the protects the Earth from solar radiation.
In the past 100 years or so the Earth magnetism has reduce by something like 10% and right across the Atlantic there is a band that has reduce by a third or so. This is leading scientist to think the Earth poles are currently reversing. Presumable where the magetisn is reduced most more solar radiation is getting in. I don't know if that would have an affect on the Earth weather systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal#Future_of_the_present_...
Wow, some really interesting answers!
I too am somewhat of a skeptic on the issue. I always was a little uncertain about this idea that humans are entirely to blame, but it was in studying that I confirmed this view.
First of all by studying S193: Fossils and the history of life. I read the Atlas that came along with the study guide in depth, carefully looking at the changes in the climate. Again, seemed to only confirm my suspicions. Then again when reading Topic 5: Climate change for S250 I felt again that any statistics they were throwing at us only seemed incomplete or pointed towards a non-human cause!
While I don't think we're entirely blameless, I'm certainly one of the ones that feels that climate change is just part of the natural cycle. We are coming out of an ice age, and that is it. It's bound to get warmer.
Brocky, I saw clips from the Great Global Warming Swindle but I'll definitely take a proper look at it. Thanks for that!
I'm of the opinion that homo sapiens is partly responsible for the current increase in global temperatures though I do not agree with the scare mongers and their more extreme claims.
More research is required though so many factors affect the Earth's climate that it is doubtful whether any one individual can really claim to understand them fully.
The continuing emergence from the last ice age must contribute, to a certain extent, to the increase in global temperatures. In addition, the huge increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and methane etc that have been pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution coupled with the destruction of rain forests across the planet must also have caused an increase. The question is - how much do these and other factors contribute.
Fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, axial tilt and precession of the poles along with the periodic reversal of the Earth's magnetic poles may have an unknown effect. There has been a suggestion that the latter of these is taking place now though again more research is required before this can be proved either way.
Whatever the cause, action must be taken to reduce the amount of pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, if for no other reason than to protect the future health of our grandchildren.
Alan
Its worth watching the whole 1 hr+ feature as it states some pretty incredible facts. The one I noted the best was the amount of CO2 that humans actually create (It's the smallest amount)! Once you realise how insignificant this figure is you'll wonder why the environmentalists are making such an issue of it.
People should worry more about the super volcano under Yellow stone. Last erupted over 600,000 years ago and is over due. When that pops, and it is when, the world will take years to recover. It will be a very unpleasant time to live.
Hope it holds of for 50 years.
http://www.earthmountainview.com/yellowstone/yellowstone.htm
I'm not an expert on this by any means; my interests lie in the biological sciences, but surely this poll is unfortunately worded?
I felt guilty saying no to whether I was "concerned" about climate change. Of course I'm concerned, but I answered no because I do not necessarily believe all the hype. And I happen to think that the IPCC is a dangerously powerful organisation with its own interests to protect.
As we're technically coming out of an ice age, it stands to reason that it's going to get warmer; I think the concerns are how much we as human beings are contributing to the rate of warming. It would appear that H. sapiens' contribution is negligible, taking into consideration other natural causes and historic cyclical events.
I think that it is healthy to have debate on this subject and am dismayed at how institutions such as the BBC (and the OU!) take for granted that what the IPCC and their ilk say is absolute fact. I implore the OU to be more impartial. The BBC will probably be loyal to whoever is running the country at the time, but the OU has no such excuse!
The BBC are only loyal to the Labour party.
BBC - The Biased Broadcasting Corporation.
The forth Icpp report on climate change.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
I don't over concern myself with climate change - humans are never going to go without in terms of making life easier and more convenient for themselves. Climate change will take place no matter what we do (it's something that is always happening) although I accept that we may speed it up.
I believe that everyone should do what they can do in terms of waste and pollution but the big wasters - industry and the likes will continue to over pollute. Also didn't I read somewhere that cows are by far bigger pollutors than motor vehicles in the in the gas they pump into the atmosphere?
i believe in climate change but am unsure how much of a difference it will be if we reduce our individual carbon footprint. i switch lights and things off anyway cos ive always done it and i get annoyed with lights on when no one is in the room. it does help the leckie bill tho! i think it should be big companies making major changes in their work ethic as they are doing a lot more damage than little old me although im sure collectively, it will make a big difference. i feel that we would really have to be pre industrial revolution to see a major reduction in CO2.
on the other hand, the sun still has 5 billion yrs to go yet our planet is heating up, there a massive holes in the ozone layer and natural disasters are on the increase... somethings happening that shouldnt be.
Climate change is happening now and temperatures will continue to rise unless we can reduce the amount of harmful chemical compounds that we release into the atmosphere. The climate change lobby certainly appears to be quangoed, people who are a part of it are passionate about preventing harmful outcomes from climate change so that's why that quango exists; passionate people don't like 'no men'
I volunteered to become an Environmental Volunteer to the local council authority for the area that I live at and there are some peculiar, passionate, behaviours:
Person talking about composting: (Shows a projected image that suggests urinating onto a compost-heep is positive.)
Darren: Come on I can't Urinate in my garden it's against the law.
Person talking about composting: No it's normal, lots of people do, most people do.
Young woman: Yes it's like 'Moon Cups'
Darren: What's a moon cup?
Young woman: They're washable female sanitary products, most people use them.
Person talking about composting: (Shows a projected image that shows the proper ratio for mixing urine with water, 20:1, to pour over a compost heep.)
Darren: A person can't mix their urine then carry it to the garden, that's what get's you a bad rep!
Person talking about composting: No it doesn't, no it doesn't.
My concern that man-made climate-change is a ‘cause’ that’s rapidly becoming an institutionalised dogma defended on moral grounds appears to be well-founded.
‘Green’ enthusiast Tim Nicholson has just won the right to sue his employer Grainger Plc for unfair dismissal on the grounds that, “a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.
I have no problem with knowledge claims of future climatic conditions being classed as faith, but should society really be extending the ‘special status’ umbrella to shelter a whole new category of unsupported personal convictions? How have we arrived at a point where a claim becomes ‘special’ BECAUSE you can’t support it?!
I’ve only just read this so haven’t digested it fully yet, but it seems to me to create a bizarre precedent – will we now see delivery drivers protected by law as they spend all day in the canteen claiming to be ‘conscientious internal combustion engine objectors’?
Any thoughts anyone?
I personnally believe that climate change is a big issue and I would consider myself "green". The question though isn't and shouldn't be whether you believe that climate change is "man-made". The question should really be: "Do you really like breathing in all of the chlorides, bromides, excessive CO2, etc etc?" No one can question this. It is obvious that in the past years, an increasing number of people get cancer (to give an example) which wasn't so common just 15 years ago. The polar ice sheets are melting, we can observe that many animals are rapidly going extinct... whether this is our fault or not, we have the responsibility of doing something about it. We sure didn't help! We know what CO2 does, why not cut our emissions? I mean it's only logical that we use sustainable energies and live a sustainable way of life. Why aren't we doing it yet? Well...big electric companies wouldn't earn too much money if we all had 100% self-sustaining houses would they? That's like the electric car... with all of the powerful minds in this world... it seems impossible that no alternatives to our polluting cars have been found. Okay, we have hybrids..but really that's not enough. An electric car did exist many years ago, but somehow it's been taken out of the market under false pretenses (see "who killed the electric car" documentary)...What about the dreaded peak oil? If that's not a good excuse to find alternatives... anyways... my point is: Who cares if we are entirely or partly or not to blame for this? Something needs to be done no matter what.
BUT is climate change the most important issue? what is beyond debate is the fact that we're trashing the planet. Humanity spreads accross the earth like a plague of locusts. Webuy cheap goods, use them, then trash them, we are turning mountains and rainforests into rubbish heaps. Is this what we WANT?
I've put this question to the climate change vote, to be submitted at Copenhagen, if it's something that's important to you too, please vote it up. Trashing the planet is not a belief, there's no agenda here and no doubt. It's happening. It needs to be stopped.
'I believe'....a debate about something as important as climate change shouldn't be about belief. It's a fact, or it isn't. Right now it isn't, it's a platform for political manipulation. A basis upon which to raise taxes, raise profiles and push through unpalatable reforms. I actually admire Al Gore for his success in bringing this issue to the forefront of media attention and OK any doom laden prophecy will always excite the media, but he's still got it up there as a credible issue. Let's add to that, let's talk about facts, TRASHING THE PLANET IS FACT.
I have a question really - whilst I am a scientist I am not a climate scientist. When reading Ian Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth' I noticed a number of serious mistakes but one comment struck me as potentially very wrong: he claims that the atmosphere only needs CO2 at 20ppm to act as a greenhouse gas. Above that figure no further effect is felt!
Can anyone explain?
20 ppm seems low to me as well. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide states that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 35% since the Industrial Revolution which points to an increase from around 280 ppm to the current level of about 380 ppm. Perhaps he meant 200 ppm?
Going off topic, I was watching a documentary on gamma ray bursts in which there were three very elementary errors in what the narrator said so we shouldn't necessarily accept what books and such programmes claim.
Alan